In article ,
whisky-dave scribeth thus
On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 13:05:31 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:55:41 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:37:16 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

A mate is in the process of fitting out a new shop and has asked
me
what he should do about running network points around the shop.

Cable is cheap, labour/access to install it isn't. If there is a need
for a network point fit two and two cables (1 Gb uses all four
pairs).

What sort of money are we looking at for a 305m roll of solid copper
Cat5e please. I've seen all sorts of prices mentioned but I'm
interested what people in the know are *actually* paying?

Our IT peolpe installed a lot of pretty purple cable last year.
http://www.rapidonline.com/Cabling/C...sted-Pair-UTP-
305m-558767


unlikely to have ordered it from above probbley went to RS where prices can be
over £230 for 105M



I think that Purple one is fire retardent or resistant=...
--
Tony Sayer

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:18:03 +0000, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:

A bit like copper telephone wires to the house, signal technology will
always evolve for the most popular medium.

Remember in band dial up starting at 1200/75 or 300/300 and ending at
28,800/28,800 bps, then some one had the bright idea of going out of
band and asymetrical starts with a 1 or 2 Mbps downlink ends with up
to 24 Mbps. Then some one has the idea fo shifting the head end from
the exchange to a cabinet and now that (if some what shorter) bit of
copper is carrying up to 78 Mbps...

Slowest annoyance will be the upstream from his internet connection.
It's going to be a fair while before an upstream of 100Mbps becomes
commonplace let alone Gbps.

I wouldn't be to sure, it's not a great leap to put GPON in the
cabinet instead of VDSL. The problem is installing the fibre from
cabinet to existing premises, new build on the other hand...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 27/01/2016 15:03, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:
On 27/01/2016 13:37, Adrian Caspersz wrote:

However I once worked on an office build where 2 points were provided
for PCs and Phones. They'd forgotten each user had their own laser
printer which (due to the house system software) had to be installed
networked.

To my mind, there's always a power supply at every data outlet and when
a 4 port Gigabit switch costs less than £20 there's little point in
running loads of extra wire. Far neater to have a single wire coming out
of the wall to a switch hidden behind something.

Its not too bad in domestic situations. In offices, switches floating
about like that soon get kicked too often or otherwise knackered, and
the network reliability starts to fall.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 20:43:05 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:18:03 +0000, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:

A bit like copper telephone wires to the house, signal technology will
always evolve for the most popular medium.

Remember in band dial up starting at 1200/75 or 300/300 and ending at
28,800/28,800 bps, then some one had the bright idea of going out of
band and asymetrical starts with a 1 or 2 Mbps downlink ends with up
to 24 Mbps. Then some one has the idea fo shifting the head end from
the exchange to a cabinet and now that (if some what shorter) bit of
copper is carrying up to 78 Mbps...

Slowest annoyance will be the upstream from his internet connection.
It's going to be a fair while before an upstream of 100Mbps becomes
commonplace let alone Gbps.

I wouldn't be to sure, it's not a great leap to put GPON in the
cabinet instead of VDSL. The problem is installing the fibre from
cabinet to existing premises, new build on the other hand...

If there's one thing computing history teaches, it's that performance goes up far far more than people intuitively expect, and what seems wildly extravagant today is a basic necessity tomorrow, and resigned to the history bin as hopeless not long after.

I still remember drooling over 1200/75 and 10M networking.


NT

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:51:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Slowest annoyance will be the upstream from his internet
connection.
It's going to be a fair while before an upstream of 100Mbps
becomes
commonplace let alone Gbps.

I wouldn't be to sure, it's not a great leap to put GPON in the
cabinet instead of VDSL. The problem is installing the fibre from
cabinet to existing premises, new build on the other hand...

If there's one thing computing history teaches, it's that performance
goes up far far more than people intuitively expect, and what seems
wildly extravagant today is a basic necessity tomorrow, and resigned to
the history bin as hopeless not long after.

I still remember drooling over 1200/75 and 10M networking.

It's only just over 10 years ago that ADSL appeared here, that's
ADSL2 "up to 8 Mbps" not ADSL2+, we get around 5 Mbps. It's starting
to feel "slow", but we are too far from the exchange/cabinet for
ADSL2+ or VDSL to improve things. Roll on FTTRN or better, sensible
prices for FTTPoD ...

Before ADSL that we had ISDN, only ever used a single channel so a
massive 64 kbps and nice step up from dialup at 28.8 kbps or up to 56
kbps compressed. Seemed OK at the time but can you imagine trying to
use the modern web at 64 kbps? With sites that use 500 k bytes of
javascript just to display "hello world". As for streaming video or
even downloading, 1 G Byte (roughly the size of 1 hours HD iPlayer)
would take over 36 hours to download...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:25:08 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

It's only just over 10 years ago that ADSL appeared here, that's ADSL2
"up to 8 Mbps" not ADSL2+, we get around 5 Mbps. It's starting to feel
"slow", but we are too far from the exchange/cabinet for ADSL2+ or VDSL
to improve things. Roll on FTTRN or better, sensible prices for FTTPoD
...

We're wired direct to the exchange, a couple of miles and a large river
away. 2Mbit on a good day.

But there's a lot of loops of fibre dangling from damn near every phone
pole around here - so FTTP it'll be, and soon...

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:34:08 +0000 (UTC), Adrian wrote:

But there's a lot of loops of fibre dangling from damn near every phone
pole around here - so FTTP it'll be, and soon...

Where is that then? Kingston Communications patch?

The, believed to be 96 core, fibre cable feeding the cabinet down in
the village passes under our forecourt and 10' from the front door.
So close and yet so far...

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:51:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Slowest annoyance will be the upstream from his internet
connection.
It's going to be a fair while before an upstream of 100Mbps
becomes
commonplace let alone Gbps.

I wouldn't be to sure, it's not a great leap to put GPON in the
cabinet instead of VDSL. The problem is installing the fibre from
cabinet to existing premises, new build on the other hand...

If there's one thing computing history teaches, it's that performance
goes up far far more than people intuitively expect, and what seems
wildly extravagant today is a basic necessity tomorrow, and resigned to
the history bin as hopeless not long after.

I still remember drooling over 1200/75 and 10M networking.

It's only just over 10 years ago that ADSL appeared here, that's
ADSL2 "up to 8 Mbps" not ADSL2+, we get around 5 Mbps. It's starting
to feel "slow", but we are too far from the exchange/cabinet for
ADSL2+ or VDSL to improve things. Roll on FTTRN or better, sensible
prices for FTTPoD ...

Before ADSL that we had ISDN, only ever used a single channel so a
massive 64 kbps and nice step up from dialup at 28.8 kbps or up to 56
kbps compressed. Seemed OK at the time but can you imagine trying to
use the modern web at 64 kbps? With sites that use 500 k bytes of
javascript just to display "hello world". As for streaming video or
even downloading, 1 G Byte (roughly the size of 1 hours HD iPlayer)
would take over 36 hours to download...

I can remember a Windows "upgrade" that took over 3 hours to download!

Use used to get about 2.5Mbps on ADSL, then came ADSL2+ which doubled that
- on a good day. I'm aqbout 2km from th exchange. In the autumn I went for
FTTC (which is about 100m away) 79Mbps!

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:25:08 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

snip

Before ADSL that we had ISDN, only ever used a single channel so a
massive 64 kbps and nice step up from dialup at 28.8 kbps or up to 56
kbps compressed.

I think we had '2B+D' (was it?) that gave us 128k bps to provide a WAN
link for our Northern office. ;-)

Seemed OK at the time but can you imagine trying to
use the modern web at 64 kbps?

We (I) had a call from a customer using one of our StatMuxes over 64k
Kilostream links and she was questioning / complaining how long it
took to back up their 1GB worth of data. I offered to do the maths for
her ... 1G byte is ~10G bits, divide that by the speed of the link,
divide by 60 to get minutes and another 60 to get hours and that's the
*best* time you can get (remembering the 64K link was being shared by
other services). The time it actually took was just a bit more that
the theoretical time. She thanked me for the explanation and asked why
her consultant hadn't explain it to her. ;-)

With sites that use 500 k bytes of
javascript just to display "hello world". As for streaming video or
even downloading, 1 G Byte (roughly the size of 1 hours HD iPlayer)
would take over 36 hours to download...

Yes, it seems we haven't actually moved forward in some instances. I
was helping BIL with a 486 PC I built him years ago and he needed to
get a file off. The hard drive had stalled so I bump started that and
got his file off on floppy. It booted very fast (DOS 6.2 / Win 3.1)
and into Automenu. It was only a second to open Wordstar and less to
close it. In fact, everything was nearly instant!

I remember downloading Doom from The States over a modem link but it
was worth the wait ... playing a multiplayer game over our Co
(NetBIOS) network was amazing (in the day). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 15:03:42 UTC, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:
To my mind, there's always a power supply at every data outlet and when
a 4 port Gigabit switch costs less than £20 there's little point in
running loads of extra wire.

OTOH Cat5 cabling is useful for so much more than ethernet - analogue phones, cctv, various audio/video over Cat5, etc.

Having one cable and relying on a switch at the end requires everything to me converted into ethernet, which can be expensive.

Owain

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:54:30 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

But there's a lot of loops of fibre dangling from damn near every phone
pole around here - so FTTP it'll be, and soon...

Where is that then? Kingston Communications patch?

No, the Welsh borders. No cabinets anywhere, just 200-odd homes connected
directly to our local exchange (a brick shed in a field of sheep),
spreading for a 3-4 mile radius in each direction, with the wiring not
exactly wandering in straight lines.

Cheaper and easier to do FTTP than a ****load of cabinets, each serving a
couple of houses via a mile of copper for each.

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:54:30 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

But there's a lot of loops of fibre dangling from damn near every phone
pole around here - so FTTP it'll be, and soon...

Where is that then? Kingston Communications patch?

No, the Welsh borders. No cabinets anywhere, just 200-odd homes connected
directly to our local exchange (a brick shed in a field of sheep),
spreading for a 3-4 mile radius in each direction, with the wiring not
exactly wandering in straight lines.

Cheaper and easier to do FTTP than a ****load of cabinets, each serving a
couple of houses via a mile of copper for each.

On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 19:11:38 UTC, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave scribeth thus
On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 13:05:31 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:55:41 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:37:16 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

A mate is in the process of fitting out a new shop and has asked
me
what he should do about running network points around the shop.

Cable is cheap, labour/access to install it isn't. If there is a need
for a network point fit two and two cables (1 Gb uses all four
pairs).

What sort of money are we looking at for a 305m roll of solid copper
Cat5e please. I've seen all sorts of prices mentioned but I'm
interested what people in the know are *actually* paying?

Our IT peolpe installed a lot of pretty purple cable last year.
http://www.rapidonline.com/Cabling/C...sted-Pair-UTP-
305m-558767


unlikely to have ordered it from above probbley went to RS where prices can be
over £230 for 105M



I think that Purple one is fire retardent or resistant=...

Yeah great.
So I have a hole in the wall with 5 purple, ~15 grey , 8 orange 4 yellow.

Nice to know the purple ones will remain after the fire :-)

On 28/01/2016 09:34, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:25:08 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

It's only just over 10 years ago that ADSL appeared here, that's ADSL2
"up to 8 Mbps" not ADSL2+, we get around 5 Mbps. It's starting to feel
"slow", but we are too far from the exchange/cabinet for ADSL2+ or VDSL
to improve things. Roll on FTTRN or better, sensible prices for FTTPoD
...

Worth looking at Mifi data over 3G and directional antennae then. Sounds
like you are in the same boat as I am. I will report my results.
I have all the bits now just waiting for a Roudntuit now.

We're wired direct to the exchange, a couple of miles and a large river
away. 2Mbit on a good day.

Bad luck. ADSL signals passing under a water course seem to always be
poxy. I am also EO line on the wrong side of the beck and 3km away from
the exchange but I am lucky and get 5Mbps (on good days). During bad
flooding of the beck it can drop back to 2Mbps. There are a few farmers
that get only 1M and one seriously unlucky with just 256k.

The bell wire hack got me +50% improvement in sync rate YMMV.

But there's a lot of loops of fibre dangling from damn near every phone
pole around here - so FTTP it'll be, and soon...

Hopefully fibre will not be affected by immersion in water unlike the
old copper cables. You are lucky to have FTTP - hell will freeze over
before we get FTTC or FTTrN up here in North Yorkshire.

The FTTrN experiments have gone awfully quiet (ISTR uneconomic).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 03:59:46 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip

Nice to know the purple ones will remain after the fire :-)

Years ago I had a phone call that went something like this:

Them: Hi Tim, when you get a moment can you pop round and see why our
network isn't working please?

Me: Sure ... any idea what's not working?

Them: All of it I think.

Me: Oh, ok, any idea why it's all stopped working?

Them: Well, the network cables look like they are melted.

Me: Erm, never seen that before ... any reason why they could have
'melted'?

Them: Ah, you didn't hear about the fire then ... ?

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I was 'selling' the benefits of my new Garmin GPS to my Dad.
'... and it's waterproof to 5m.'

Dad: I'm not sure how that will help if it's fitted to your motorbike
at the time ... ;-)

On 28/01/2016 09:34, Adrian wrote:

We're wired direct to the exchange, a couple of miles and a large river
away. 2Mbit on a good day.

200m on my direct connection here.
22Mbps down but 1Mbps up makes remote connection virtually impossible.

But there's a lot of loops of fibre dangling from damn near every phone
pole around here - so FTTP it'll be, and soon...

£200 + VAT a month ?

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:31:26 +0000, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:

But there's a lot of loops of fibre dangling from damn near every phone
pole around here - so FTTP it'll be, and soon...

£200 + VAT a month ?

Hehehe. ****. That.

En el artículo o.uk,
Dave Liquorice escribió:

Seemed OK at the time but can you imagine trying to
use the modern web at 64 kbps?

When my broadband went down a while back, I used a 56k modem to get my
daily fix of the internets. Quite an eye-opener.

A major part of the problem is advertising. Those selfish ****ers think
nothing of hurling flashing, auto-vid-playing, noisy ads that consume
more bandwidth combined than the page you actually wanted to look at.
And then they whinge that people use ad-blockers to preserve their
sanity.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

En el artículo , Adrian
escribió:

Cheaper and easier to do FTTP than a ****load of cabinets, each serving a
couple of houses via a mile of copper for each.

Shock horror, Openwoe do something sensible for once.

That's interesting. Do you know what the charges will be yet?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

En el artículo , charles
escribió:

In the autumn I went for
FTTC (which is about 100m away) 79Mbps!

BT are trialling G.fast - up to 300Mbps.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:46:32 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Cheaper and easier to do FTTP than a ****load of cabinets, each serving
a couple of houses via a mile of copper for each.

Shock horror, Openwoe do something sensible for once.

That's interesting. Do you know what the charges will be yet?

No. But they've put the cabling to the pole outside EVERY property, and
nobody's been asked about whether they want to sign up and pay more or
not.

En el artículo , Adrian
escribió:

No. But they've put the cabling to the pole outside EVERY property, and
nobody's been asked about whether they want to sign up and pay more or
not.

Ok, ta. It's be interesting to hear what the charges are when the nice
BT salesman comes a-calling.

I'm mainly wondering if it'll be priced at a similar level to copper
wires (bearing in mind they're installing FTTP in your village only
because it's more cost efficient for them), or whether they'll try and
screw you over just because it's FTTP.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:43:11 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

No. But they've put the cabling to the pole outside EVERY property, and
nobody's been asked about whether they want to sign up and pay more or
not.

Ok, ta. It's be interesting to hear what the charges are when the nice
BT salesman comes a-calling.

I'm mainly wondering if it'll be priced at a similar level to copper
wires (bearing in mind they're installing FTTP in your village only
because it's more cost efficient for them), or whether they'll try and
screw you over just because it's FTTP.

I suspect it'll be treated as signing up to an FTTC product - BT Infinity
or whatever.

On 28/01/2016 11:08, Huge wrote:
On 2016-01-28, John Rumm wrote:
On 27/01/2016 15:03, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:
On 27/01/2016 13:37, Adrian Caspersz wrote:

However I once worked on an office build where 2 points were provided
for PCs and Phones. They'd forgotten each user had their own laser
printer which (due to the house system software) had to be installed
networked.

To my mind, there's always a power supply at every data outlet and when
a 4 port Gigabit switch costs less than £20 there's little point in
running loads of extra wire. Far neater to have a single wire coming out
of the wall to a switch hidden behind something.

Its not too bad in domestic situations. In offices, switches floating
about like that soon get kicked too often or otherwise knackered, and
the network reliability starts to fall.

Or, as happened to me once, someone "tidies it away" and then calls IT as to
why nothing in the office works any more.

Yup, had that...

and someone who crated a network storm on a lan by deciding that a loose
RJ45 really ought to be plugged into something - and ended up creating a
loopback on an old hub that did not spot the problem and attempted to
forward the forwarded packet forever more!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28/01/2016 11:47, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:54:30 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

But there's a lot of loops of fibre dangling from damn near every phone
pole around here - so FTTP it'll be, and soon...

Where is that then? Kingston Communications patch?

No, the Welsh borders. No cabinets anywhere, just 200-odd homes connected
directly to our local exchange (a brick shed in a field of sheep),
spreading for a 3-4 mile radius in each direction, with the wiring not
exactly wandering in straight lines.

Cheaper and easier to do FTTP than a ****load of cabinets, each serving a
couple of houses via a mile of copper for each.

It will be interesting to see if they start to use that approach for
other rural locations which don't have cabinets, and what the break even
point is for number of dwellings in a location to make a cabinet pay...

Here for example there are approx 12 properties stretched along 300m of
road - so one cabinet could serve them all, although at the moment they
are all wired back to the exchange over 5000m away.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28/01/16 18:32, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/01/2016 11:08, Huge wrote:
On 2016-01-28, John Rumm wrote:
On 27/01/2016 15:03, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:


Or, as happened to me once, someone "tidies it away" and then calls IT
as to
why nothing in the office works any more.

Yup, had that...

and someone who crated a network storm on a lan by deciding that a loose
RJ45 really ought to be plugged into something - and ended up creating a
loopback on an old hub that did not spot the problem and attempted to
forward the forwarded packet forever more!


Or someone brings in their 4-port redundant thing from home which fixes
their local lack of ports issue, but gifts the rest of the network a new
DHCP server leasing out 192.168.0.0/24 and a gateway to nowhere.

--
Adrian C

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:01:54 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

But there's a lot of loops of fibre dangling from damn near every
phone pole around here - so FTTP it'll be, and soon...

Where is that then? Kingston Communications patch?

No, the Welsh borders. No cabinets anywhere, just 200-odd homes
connected directly to our local exchange (a brick shed in a field of
sheep), spreading for a 3-4 mile radius in each direction, with the
wiring not exactly wandering in straight lines.

Cheaper and easier to do FTTP than a ****load of cabinets, each serving
a couple of houses via a mile of copper for each.

It will be interesting to see if they start to use that approach for
other rural locations which don't have cabinets, and what the break even
point is for number of dwellings in a location to make a cabinet pay...

Here for example there are approx 12 properties stretched along 300m of
road - so one cabinet could serve them all, although at the moment they
are all wired back to the exchange over 5000m away.

Do you have a scheme along these lines?
http://www.fastershire.com/

On 26/01/2016 17:59, John Rumm wrote:
I would say for domestic stuff pretty much everyone. There is no real
cost disadvantage going with 1G ethernet, and it will be standard on any
PC less than say 5 years old. For small business use, in some cases its
less important, but there is still no point not.

Fully agree about no point in not using gigabit, but there are still
some cheesepared but current machines with only 10/100, such as (first
examples I found) HP 250 G4 Laptop and HP 15-ac106na Laptop.

(I keep noticing the odd one here or there - but never remember which
ones they are so had to search for examples.)

--
Rod

On 27/01/2016 19:02, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave scribeth thus
On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 13:05:31 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:55:41 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:37:16 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

A mate is in the process of fitting out a new shop and has asked
me
what he should do about running network points around the shop.

Cable is cheap, labour/access to install it isn't. If there is a need
for a network point fit two and two cables (1 Gb uses all four
pairs).

What sort of money are we looking at for a 305m roll of solid copper
Cat5e please. I've seen all sorts of prices mentioned but I'm
interested what people in the know are *actually* paying?

Our IT peolpe installed a lot of pretty purple cable last year.
http://www.rapidonline.com/Cabling/C...sted-Pair-UTP-
305m-558767


unlikely to have ordered it from above probbley went to RS where prices can be
over £230 for 105M



I think that Purple one is fire retardent or resistant=...

It will be LSZH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_smoke_zero_halogen

--
Eednud

En el artículo , Adrian Caspersz
escribió:

Or someone brings in their 4-port redundant thing from home which fixes
their local lack of ports issue, but gifts the rest of the network a new
DHCP server leasing out 192.168.0.0/24 and a gateway to nowhere.

That.

If we were short of ports in a location, I got the uni's infrastructure
dept to call the cabling installers to come and run in a few more.

Users were prohibited from splitting network ports by using switches.
These were flagged up on the monitoring systems and appropriate LARTs
applied.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

wrote:

OTOH Cat5 cabling is useful for so much more than ethernet - analogue phones, cctv, various audio/video over Cat5, etc.

Having one cable and relying on a switch at the end requires everything to me converted into ethernet, which can be expensive.

Also multiple ethernet ports mean you can segment the network: not put the
doorbell on the same network as the banking data. You can do that on a
switch with VLANs, but to do that you need a more expensive switch.

Theo

Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:43:11 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Ok, ta. It's be interesting to hear what the charges are when the nice
BT salesman comes a-calling.

I'm mainly wondering if it'll be priced at a similar level to copper
wires (bearing in mind they're installing FTTP in your village only
because it's more cost efficient for them), or whether they'll try and
screw you over just because it's FTTP.

I suspect it'll be treated as signing up to an FTTC product - BT Infinity
or whatever.

It seems to be a different product, but with similar pricing. Here's Zen's
pricelist which isn't bad:
https://www.zen.co.uk/business/broad...broadband.aspx
(while it says 'business', that was linked from the Home/Home Office page
with no indication that you have to be a business to get it)

Since this is Openreach I'm sure they'd like to keep it in the BT family,
but you should be able to buy from any OR ISP.

Theo

On 28/01/2016 19:12, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 28/01/16 18:32, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/01/2016 11:08, Huge wrote:
On 2016-01-28, John Rumm wrote:
On 27/01/2016 15:03, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:


Or, as happened to me once, someone "tidies it away" and then calls IT
as to
why nothing in the office works any more.

Yup, had that...

and someone who crated a network storm on a lan by deciding that a loose
RJ45 really ought to be plugged into something - and ended up creating a
loopback on an old hub that did not spot the problem and attempted to
forward the forwarded packet forever more!


Or someone brings in their 4-port redundant thing from home which fixes
their local lack of ports issue, but gifts the rest of the network a new
DHCP server leasing out 192.168.0.0/24 and a gateway to nowhere.

Yup had that as well...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28/01/2016 19:51, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:01:54 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

But there's a lot of loops of fibre dangling from damn near every
phone pole around here - so FTTP it'll be, and soon...

Where is that then? Kingston Communications patch?

No, the Welsh borders. No cabinets anywhere, just 200-odd homes
connected directly to our local exchange (a brick shed in a field of
sheep), spreading for a 3-4 mile radius in each direction, with the
wiring not exactly wandering in straight lines.

Cheaper and easier to do FTTP than a ****load of cabinets, each serving
a couple of houses via a mile of copper for each.

It will be interesting to see if they start to use that approach for
other rural locations which don't have cabinets, and what the break even
point is for number of dwellings in a location to make a cabinet pay...

Here for example there are approx 12 properties stretched along 300m of
road - so one cabinet could serve them all, although at the moment they
are all wired back to the exchange over 5000m away.

Do you have a scheme along these lines?
http://www.fastershire.com/

Good question...

Hmmm, possibly:

http://www.superfastessex.org/ruralchallenge.aspx

ok if you are in Epping Forest by the sounds of it.

According to the interactive map:

http://www.superfastessex.org/maps

we are coloured blue, which does not actually match any of the colours
in the key! So no idea what that means...

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
A major part of the problem is advertising. Those selfish ****ers think
nothing of hurling flashing, auto-vid-playing, noisy ads that consume
more bandwidth combined than the page you actually wanted to look at.
And then they whinge that people use ad-blockers to preserve their
sanity.

http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm

"...

To repeat a suggestion I made on Twitter, I contend that text-based
web[pages] should not exceed in size the major works of Russian literature.

This is a generous yardstick. I could have picked French literature, full of
slim little books, but I intentionally went with Russian novels and their
reputation for ponderousness.

In Goncharov's Oblomov, for example, the title character spends the first
hundred pages just getting out of bed.

If you open that tweet in a browser, you'll see the page is 900 KB big.
That's almost 100 KB more than the full text of The Master and Margarita,
Bulgakovs funny and enigmatic novel about the Devil visiting Moscow with
his retinue (complete with a giant cat!) during the Great Purge of 1937,
intercut with an odd vision of the life of Pontius Pilate, Jesus Christ, and
the devoted but unreliable apostle Matthew.

For a single tweet.

...."


Theo

On 29/01/16 00:33, Theo wrote:
Also multiple ethernet ports mean you can segment the network: not put the
doorbell on the same network as the banking data. You can do that on a
switch with VLANs, but to do that you need a more expensive switch.

Theo
Can you put that in simple English that a a mere professional IT network
engineer can understand?

What are 'multiple Ethernet ports' in this context, please, and how do
they differ from what a switch has anyway?


--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 29/01/16 00:58, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/01/2016 19:12, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 28/01/16 18:32, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/01/2016 11:08, Huge wrote:
On 2016-01-28, John Rumm
wrote:
On 27/01/2016 15:03, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:


Or, as happened to me once, someone "tidies it away" and then
calls IT as to why nothing in the office works any more.

Yup, had that...

and someone who crated a network storm on a lan by deciding that
a loose RJ45 really ought to be plugged into something - and
ended up creating a loopback on an old hub that did not spot the
problem and attempted to forward the forwarded packet forever
more!


Or someone brings in their 4-port redundant thing from home which
fixes their local lack of ports issue, but gifts the rest of the
network a new DHCP server leasing out 192.168.0.0/24 and a gateway
to nowhere.

Yup had that as well...


Another gateway to nowhere...

I was working in a UK call centre where 150 thin client devices had the
next gateway set to a Citrix server out of town. This worked normally
until one particular morning when some of the workstations failed to
connect and a lot of sales activity was lost. Management not happy.

We could ping the gateway interface and got a quick response. Hmmm...
Guys in Citrix server town could ping our interface as well. OK.

Netscans revealed the MAC address of the gateway interface, and that to
be something made by HP.

A printer. Someone bored in a meeting room with idle fingers had given
this device the gateway IP address and lots of enquiring packets to look
at. We never found whom this person was.

IT people have a special dispensation from H&S for running up and down
corridors, in fire fighting situations like this. A map of where network
printers are exactly located would have been useful, but oh no, we don't
have that :-(

--
Adrian C

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:48:40 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

BT are trialling G.fast - up to 300Mbps.

"up to" and how far does it get down the copper? BT shoved a cabinet
at the exchange and muttered something about G.fast. I had a quick
google and AFAICT at our distance, 3 km or so, ii makes sod all
difference to the speed no matter what you use ADSL2 ADSL2+ VDSL
G.fast.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:07:59 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

It's only just over 10 years ago that ADSL appeared here, that's
ADSL2
"up to 8 Mbps" not ADSL2+, we get around 5 Mbps. It's starting to
feel
"slow", but we are too far from the exchange/cabinet for ADSL2+
or
VDSL to improve things. Roll on FTTRN or better, sensible prices
for
FTTPoD

Worth looking at Mifi data over 3G ...

3G wozzat? No there is a 3G signal here if you stand bya window
upstairs on the right side of the house.

... and directional antennae then.

That could be in the right place but getting a suitable data tariff
might be tricky, light month this month only 51.2 GB download. Also a
static, public, IPv4 address and availabilty of IPv6.

The FTTrN experiments have gone awfully quiet (ISTR uneconomic).

They would only put them on existing fibre routes and then only at
"fibre nodes" (joins). FTTrN is (was?) one of my straws as the new
fibre route to the village was reputed to have a fibre node 200 m
away in the upstream direction.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:46:32 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Cheaper and easier to do FTTP than a ****load of cabinets, each serving
a couple of houses via a mile of copper for each.

Shock horror, Openwoe do something sensible for once.

That's interesting. Do you know what the charges will be yet?

No. But they've put the cabling to the pole outside EVERY property, and
nobody's been asked about whether they want to sign up and pay more or
not.

5 years ago BT used a government grant to put fibre down the roads and up
the poles around here but it's not connected to any of the houses - "no
commercial premises - so economically not viable"! - WHY did they do it?
To stop Virgin Media who inherited ancient cabling getting the grant.

Alan

--


Using an ARMX6